anyone ever campaign a truly GOOD party?

[da newt]

Thinking about alignment, has anyone ever played a campaign where all of the party members were truly GOOD aligned and always acted accordingly?

I mean this is a game entirely centered around hunting and killing sentient creatures and then taking all of their valuables - how can anyone claim that those are the actions of GOOD people?

Maybe if your party only stayed in their home town/city and defended it when attacked and spent the rest of their time as law abiding citizens with a regular job active in their community creating a better life for all of those around them ...

BUT 99% of all adventures include theft, mind manipulation, pillaging, hundreds of murders of humanoids and other sentient creatures, breaking and entering, violence of all sorts, (remember that time we we went into the goblin's layer and killed them ALL just because they were goblins), etc - it's the primary way to gain XP and level up.

If we are completely honest with ourselves, Heroes (and their players) are just thugs who have convinced themselves they are justified.

Thoughts?

[Spore]

The problem is that good or a modern understanding of what is right and Good or a fantastical construct of being on the side of angels and slaying Evil goblins is a wholly different beast.

So our tiefling protecting his blade, that was one of the pillars that held the veils between the living and the dead world with blood magic was probably not Good, but definitely morally right.

[Naanomi]

It can be done, the campaign I ran for my students' gaming group was focused mostly on undead; and the characters were pretty heroic in general (though at least one was more 'lawful neutral' I suppose)

[J-H]

Usually it's not "They are goblins, go kill them." It's "They are goblins, and they have been stealing children" or "They are goblins, and they have been raiding outlying farms and stealing food people need to live."

[Amnestic]

If we are completely honest with ourselves, Heroes (and their players) are just thugs who have convinced themselves they are justified.

Thoughts?

I think it's very much dependent on the campaign you're running. Goblins or orcs or drow or whatever don't need to be inherently evil for the player to be justified in foiling their plans at the end of a blade, and that's not even getting into big forces of evil like demons and devils. Hell, even something as simple as "rescue the captured prince(ss) from the evil dragon".

There's of course a lot of more morally grey stories these days, and that's not a bad thing on its own (I'm quite fond of them) but the idea that you can't have a direct Good Heroic Fantasy story anymore...nah, don't buy it.

[Tanarii]

I mean this is a game entirely centered around hunting and killing sentient creatures and then taking all of their valuables - how can anyone claim that those are the actions of GOOD people?

This sounds like you're bringing your own personal real world interpretation of GOOD to the game.

(remember that time we we went into the goblin's layer and killed them ALL just because they were goblins),

I can already see this thread going the direction of Real World Politics.

[Zevox]

I mean this is a game entirely centered around hunting and killing sentient creatures and then taking all of their valuables - how can anyone claim that those are the actions of GOOD people?

Sounds more like a problem of how some DMs run things than a problem with the game to me. My group certainly doesn't play the game as centered on that. Either there's a good reason in the story that some enemy needs to be fought and stopped from doing something evil, or we don't fight. Our group looks for problems that need solving (and not necessarily through violent means), not things to kill and loot to steal.

[Unoriginal]

Thinking about alignment, has anyone ever played a campaign where all of the party members were truly GOOD aligned and always acted accordingly?

I mean this is a game entirely centered around hunting and killing sentient creatures and then taking all of their valuables - how can anyone claim that those are the actions of GOOD people?

Maybe if your party only stayed in their home town/city and defended it when attacked and spent the rest of their time as law abiding citizens with a regular job active in their community creating a better life for all of those around them ...

BUT 99% of all adventures include theft, mind manipulation, pillaging, hundreds of murders of humanoids and other sentient creatures, breaking and entering, violence of all sorts, (remember that time we we went into the goblin's layer and killed them ALL just because they were goblins), etc - it's the primary way to gain XP and level up.

If we are completely honest with ourselves, Heroes (and their players) are just thugs who have convinced themselves they are justified.

Thoughts?

I don't know any published 5e module where the PCs are the aggressors against people who just were there and didn't do anything.

Orcs and goblins and drows and cultists aren't considered evil because they're orcs and goblins and drows and cultists, but because they're actively pillaging/killing/enslaving people and more often than not planning to do worse/do the same on a bigger scale when the PCs intervene.

At best you can argue that tomb robbing isn't a "good guys" activity.


But let me turn the question to you, da newt: do you think that if a group goes in an enemy camp to kill its warlord on the eve of the invasion said warlord has decided to inflict on the closest village available, they cannot be the good guys?


EDIT:

Echoing what others have said, DnD has *never* been about hunting and killing people to loot their homes and take their belongings. I don't remember going in a cave and "killing all the goblins because they're goblins" because none of the characters I've played or seen played around a table I was sitting at ever did that. Including the times I played in evil campaigns.

[TyGuy]

Currently running a game where all the encounters, save one, have been against evil creatures or in the name of self defense. I don't understand the dilemma.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sounds more like a problem of how some DMs run things than a problem with the game to me. My group certainly doesn't play the game as centered on that. Either there's a good reason in the story that some enemy needs to be fought and stopped from doing something evil, or we don't fight. Our group looks for problems that need solving (and not necessarily through violent means), not things to kill and loot to steal.

Yes, it's easy to make every adventuring group into a villain with all context removed.

Here's an example using my last session yesterday:
The party enters a new town hunting a man with the intent to apprehend and possibly kill him for crimes he was only alleged of doing. While in town they broke into the town hall and went through private records. When they found the man, they spoke for only a moment before they fought and killed him.

Now the additional context:
-They were hired by a knowledgeable person who had good reason to suspect the man
-The man was guilty, of murder, which he admitted to freely in the brief conversation they had. He then tried to murder them before they had a chance to try and apprehend him rather than kill him.
-They broke into the town hall because the town speaker was missing, they assumed (correctly) that he had been murdered by the serial killer they were hunting. There was no evidence to be found in the town hall but their intentions were not malicious.

[Unoriginal]

Currently running a game where all the encounters, save one, have been against evil creatures or in the name of self defense. I don't understand the dilemma.

There is no dilemma. It's just a rehash of the old "DnD is about killing people because of their species" and "heroes can't actually be heroes" stuff.

[Bilbron]

Thinking about alignment, has anyone ever played a campaign where all of the party members were truly GOOD aligned and always acted accordingly?

I mean this is a game entirely centered around hunting and killing sentient creatures and then taking all of their valuables - how can anyone claim that those are the actions of GOOD people?

Maybe if your party only stayed in their home town/city and defended it when attacked and spent the rest of their time as law abiding citizens with a regular job active in their community creating a better life for all of those around them ...

BUT 99% of all adventures include theft, mind manipulation, pillaging, hundreds of murders of humanoids and other sentient creatures, breaking and entering, violence of all sorts, (remember that time we we went into the goblin's layer and killed them ALL just because they were goblins), etc - it's the primary way to gain XP and level up.

If we are completely honest with ourselves, Heroes (and their players) are just thugs who have convinced themselves they are justified.

Thoughts?

I'm a philosopher specializing in ethics (my philosophy is called "The Heroic Ethic"), and I always play good heroes. There is sometimes some friction with the inevitable Chaotic Neutral character, but I don't tolerate shenanigans (and I'm always the most powerful PC, so...).

[Gryndle]

The key is in playing with people that are at least somewhat emotionally mature. When playing with people like that, I have had truly "good" aligned campaigns, and evil aligned campaigns, and it all ran smooth. Throw in just one player that lacks that maturity and it all goes out the window.

Alignment has no real impact on how a game runs, if the players themselves are reasonable.

[Thunderous Mojo]

da newt...you are asking a great question.
There is not going to be a simple answer.
Personages represented in the works of Plato often fail to see The Good, because lesser aspects of goodness, are impossible to ignore.

Thrasymachus stated in the Republic that justice was no more than that
which advantaged the stronger.

The Ring of Gyges implies the more power someone attains without consequence or social restraint the more the Just will resemble Unjust.

I'm a philosopher specializing in ethics (my philosophy is called "The Heroic Ethic"), and I always play good heroes. (and I'm always the most powerful PC, so...).

Bilbron.....this thread is right in your bailiwick!
Out of curiosity: I presume you draw off Nietzsche?

I can understand you may not want to reveal your "real identity", but I would be curious to read what you have published....feel free to send me a Private Message with the publication name...if you are so inclined...no problem if you would rather decline.

From a practical game perspective...a D&D game does not have to be structured around kicking in doors, killing "evil" and taking stuff.

It takes more effort, and usually requires people interested in Roleplaying more than Rollplaying. I want to stress that I make no normative judgement between
the two styles...both are fun and equally sound.

[SpanielBear]

It would actually be really interesting to know how many adventuring groups are Utilitarian in their ethics (greatest happiness to the greatest number), or Deontological (good can only come from good acts, ends do not necessarily justify the means).

[Wraith]

I was in a group that played through Descent Into Avernus where nearly everyone was Good aligned (two Paladin, a Gold-Dragonkin Bard and a couple of Wizards) where the least 'good' person was me, a True Neutral Moon Druid who was pissed that the Devils were tearing up the countryside with their stupid invasion, so I was invested in playing nicely with the rest of the party.

Seeking ~All Good resolutions to problems was pretty easy as we were generally fighting unrepentantly Evil enemies in literal Hell - not that "killing evil things is always good" but when their only plan was the invasion and enslavement of the Material Plane and they were actively hunting the party to murder us and everyone we had ever met, therefore we were pretty much constantly thwarting enemies who were consciously and willingly Evil.

The hardest part about this campaign was trying to find something to do APART FROM actively opposing evil all the time. That sounds weird, but when you're Good Guys in hell fighting devils then there's no room for capitulation, no 'third party' or revolutionaries that you can join, nowhere that you can side-quest or otherwise do something not directly or indirectly involved with the plot - it's all devils, all the time and what little side-quests we could find were often agreed by the Good party as being... well, too trivial compared to their sworn duty to save the world.
By the end of it, even our Paladin were looking for some down-time wherein they could follow their personal backstories and mingle in politics and the likes, and I hadn't seen a living non-sentient creature that wasn't either a Paladin's mount or one of my summoned creatures in weeks. We were all grown up and sensible enough as players to realise that this campaign was about us surviving long enough to fight off the forces of evil and not much else, but I can see how (in a less streamlined campaign) it would have come across as constricting and rail-road-y.

[D+1]

BUT 99% of all adventures include theft, mind manipulation, pillaging, hundreds of murders of humanoids and other sentient creatures, breaking and entering, violence of all sorts, (remember that time we we went into the goblin's layer and killed them ALL just because they were goblins), etc - it's the primary way to gain XP and level up.
...
Thoughts?

Mostly that this perception indicates an incomplete understanding of alignment and fantasy/fictional morality and ethics, and in particular how certain rules versions clumsily and inadvisably undermined or outright dismantled the assumptions that earlier editions were built on and created such issues as a result.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I did one based on Arthurian legends. Everyone fit the mold of a hero from antiquity, what most people would consider 'good'. I had a hand in developing everyone's characters at the start, so I basically dictated this. It's one of only two D&D games I've ever constrained character creation for a campaign, and the only one that wasn't semi-random. Outside of D&D, I've also done this in Dread (you basically can't play Dread without dictating characters to some degree) and Giant Guardian Generation (done as an April Fool's prank, actually. I promised weird D&D at the time).

That's it, though. Every other game I've ever played always has at least one player that has greedy murderhobo vibes.

[Unoriginal]

I did one based on Arthurian legends. Everyone fit the mold of a hero from antiquity, what most people would consider 'good'.

I mean, both Arthurian characters and Antiquity's heroes would certainly not be considered "good" by today's morals and ethics, and in general would not fit any of of D&D 5e's good alignments.

The hardest part about this campaign was trying to find something to do APART FROM actively opposing evil all the time. That sounds weird, but when you're Good Guys in hell fighting devils then there's no room for capitulation, no 'third party' or revolutionaries that you can join, nowhere that you can side-quest or otherwise do something not directly or indirectly involved with the plot - it's all devils, all the time and what little side-quests we could find were often agreed by the Good party as being... well, too trivial compared to their sworn duty to save the world.
By the end of it, even our Paladin were looking for some down-time wherein they could follow their personal backstories and mingle in politics and the likes, and I hadn't seen a living non-sentient creature that wasn't either a Paladin's mount or one of my summoned creatures in weeks. We were all grown up and sensible enough as players to realise that this campaign was about us surviving long enough to fight off the forces of evil and not much else, but I can see how (in a less streamlined campaign) it would have come across as constricting and rail-road-y.

That's interesting, because the adventure has a few good people for the PCs to interact with, and quite a few not-good-but-will-help-you-stop-the-BBEG's-plan ones. It's entirely possible to play the module without meeting most of them, though.

I'm guessing your group took the Path of Demons rather than the Path of Devils, right?

[Dragonexx]

Thinking about alignment, has anyone ever played a campaign where all of the party members were truly GOOD aligned and always acted accordingly?

I mean this is a game entirely centered around hunting and killing sentient creatures and then taking all of their valuables - how can anyone claim that those are the actions of GOOD people?

Maybe if your party only stayed in their home town/city and defended it when attacked and spent the rest of their time as law abiding citizens with a regular job active in their community creating a better life for all of those around them ...

BUT 99% of all adventures include theft, mind manipulation, pillaging, hundreds of murders of humanoids and other sentient creatures, breaking and entering, violence of all sorts, (remember that time we we went into the goblin's layer and killed them ALL just because they were goblins), etc - it's the primary way to gain XP and level up.

If we are completely honest with ourselves, Heroes (and their players) are just thugs who have convinced themselves they are justified.

Thoughts?

I still struggle to get why this is a problem. It's not hard at all to give a reason why we have to kill these specific orcs (they've been raping, pillaging and murdering across the countryside) and not killing all orcs in general just 'cause their orcs.

[Sigreid]

The whole party? No. Individuals, from time to time. Part of it is simply that playing an RPG is often about doing things you can't or won't do. A lot of that stuff is not so nice though mostly petty. Some of that stuff is down right evil.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As long as we're not expecting Exalted (in the 3.5e horrible splat book sense) people and just merely Good, it's been the norm for me. There was one party where the characters may have been firmly on the Neutral side of the line, but they (and I) kept their killing aimed at people who really deserved it. Not for their race (because racial alignments aren't a thing in my games), but because of their actions. And when real innocents were in danger, they'd put themselves in harm's way to stop them, even if they grumbled about not getting paid. Judged on their actions, they were closer to Good than to Evil. Basically, their "evil" was all talk. For me, the big "I rarely see" is Lawful. I occasionally have some, but mostly my parties are firmly on the Chaotic side of things.

I've never had a group of murderhobos. Violent wanderers? Sure. But I don't think a single shopkeeper or other innocent townsperson has been brutalized (or even seriously threatened) in my games. Ever. Even theft has been restricted to stealing from criminals and evildoers. Across more than a dozen groups, most of which were teenagers. At most, the "evil" has been taking things to extremes. "Artistically" slaughtering people who acted in certain ways (abuse towards women is a universal trigger for "he dies, horribly, now" in my games, it turns out). But only on those whose guilt is beyond a doubt (as in "caught in the act, no denials or other explanations offered or possible").

I think it helps that I'm pretty clear up front (in session 0 and before) that I'm looking for heroes, not villains. Plus, I make it clear that the world will react to you and what you do matters. No morality meter here, but if you have a reputation for being nasty, people will be nasty to you. And if you have a reputation for being reasonable, they'll be reasonable. And most things (other than mindless creatures) will talk. You may not be able to talk them out of a fight, but they'll talk. Plus the lack of designated "evil races" means that killing someone just because of their birth isn't an accepted act.

[Sigreid]

As long as we're not expecting Exalted (in the 3.5e horrible splat book sense) people and just merely Good, it's been the norm for me. There was one party where the characters may have been firmly on the Neutral side of the line, but they (and I) kept their killing aimed at people who really deserved it. Not for their race (because racial alignments aren't a thing in my games), but because of their actions. And when real innocents were in danger, they'd put themselves in harm's way to stop them, even if they grumbled about not getting paid. Judged on their actions, they were closer to Good than to Evil. Basically, their "evil" was all talk. For me, the big "I rarely see" is Lawful. I occasionally have some, but mostly my parties are firmly on the Chaotic side of things.

I've never had a group of murderhobos. Violent wanderers? Sure. But I don't think a single shopkeeper or other innocent townsperson has been brutalized (or even seriously threatened) in my games. Ever. Even theft has been restricted to stealing from criminals and evildoers. Across more than a dozen groups, most of which were teenagers. At most, the "evil" has been taking things to extremes. "Artistically" slaughtering people who acted in certain ways (abuse towards women is a universal trigger for "he dies, horribly, now" in my games, it turns out). But only on those whose guilt is beyond a doubt (as in "caught in the act, no denials or other explanations offered or possible").

I think it helps that I'm pretty clear up front (in session 0 and before) that I'm looking for heroes, not villains. Plus, I make it clear that the world will react to you and what you do matters. No morality meter here, but if you have a reputation for being nasty, people will be nasty to you. And if you have a reputation for being reasonable, they'll be reasonable. And most things (other than mindless creatures) will talk. You may not be able to talk them out of a fight, but they'll talk. Plus the lack of designated "evil races" means that killing someone just because of their birth isn't an accepted act.

Hehe, we even had a campaign where we were the evil goblins kidnapping and eating children, townsfolk, and really anyone we could get our hands on.

When I DM I'm less concerned with the morality of the party than their motivation. They can be good, evil or neutral, but I need them to tell me what they're interested in doing rather than me always laying out an adventure and hoping they get into it. You want to establish a slave empire? Fine. I'll give you the opportunities. You want to be monster hunters for a sacred order? Fine. lets build the order and go from there. Or anything else the party agrees they're willing to set or support as goals.

[Bilbron]

da newt...you are asking a great question.
There is not going to be a simple answer.
Personages represented in the works of Plato often fail to see The Good, because lesser aspects of goodness, are impossible to ignore.

Thrasymachus stated in the Republic that justice was no more than that
which advantaged the stronger.

The Ring of Gyges implies the more power someone attains without consequence or social restraint the more the Just will resemble Unjust.



Bilbron.....this thread is right in your bailiwick!
Out of curiosity: I presume you draw off Nietzsche?

I can understand you may not want to reveal your "real identity", but I would be curious to read what you have published....feel free to send me a Private Message with the publication name...if you are so inclined...no problem if you would rather decline.

From a practical game perspective...a D&D game does not have to be structured around kicking in doors, killing "evil" and taking stuff.

It takes more effort, and usually requires people interested in Roleplaying more than Rollplaying. I want to stress that I make no normative judgement between
the two styles...both are fun and equally sound.

I haven't published, I'm afraid. My work is groundbreaking but I've always been very lazy with sharing as I tend to pursue for my own satisfaction. I have been planning a youtube around it for years, however, and now that I'm learning how to do vids with my D&D channel, I plan to roll out the ethics channel some time next year.

I will say that, while my work is an entirely new approach, there is one theorist out there who has come to similiar realizations and has taken a similar approach, if you care to look at him. His name is JC Lester and he lays out his theory in Escape from Leviathan. However, he uses a Critical Rationalist approach, which I also embrace, but as such he refuses to do deductive arguments from self-evident premises, which I still think is valuable and has revealed certain insights that escape Lester.

I do not draw from Neitzche, who is a Romantic whereas I am a Rational. I respect some of his pithy sayings and realizations, but I view his overall philosophy as incoherent and dangerous, appealing the lowest instincts of humanity, ala Rousseau. I come from the tradition of Locke and Mises.

As an aside, Socrates is so bad in Plato's tellings. His arguments against Thrasymachus are particularly poor. I've sometimes wished to have dialectic against opponents who so readily concede to bad arguments, lol.

[Sigreid]

I'm a philosopher specializing in ethics (my philosophy is called "The Heroic Ethic"), and I always play good heroes. There is sometimes some friction with the inevitable Chaotic Neutral character, but I don't tolerate shenanigans (and I'm always the most powerful PC, so...).

So you threaten, bully and are potentially willing to assault or kill your team mates. I'm surprised anyone will group with you.

[noob]

Thinking about alignment, has anyone ever played a campaign where all of the party members were truly GOOD aligned and always acted accordingly?

I mean this is a game entirely centered around hunting and killing sentient creatures and then taking all of their valuables - how can anyone claim that those are the actions of GOOD people?

Maybe if your party only stayed in their home town/city and defended it when attacked and spent the rest of their time as law abiding citizens with a regular job active in their community creating a better life for all of those around them ...

BUT 99% of all adventures include theft, mind manipulation, pillaging, hundreds of murders of humanoids and other sentient creatures, breaking and entering, violence of all sorts, (remember that time we we went into the goblin's layer and killed them ALL just because they were goblins), etc - it's the primary way to gain XP and level up.

If we are completely honest with ourselves, Heroes (and their players) are just thugs who have convinced themselves they are justified.

Thoughts?

Depends on what you use as a measure of good.
If your measurement of good is maximising happiness and that you are an happiness gremlin(a creature that enjoys so much all the atrocities it commits that their negative impact on the happiness of the others is negligible in relative) then no matter what you do it is good.
If you are one of those people believing in eugenics then the more people you kill the more good you are because you are weeding out the people who are bad at surviving you which is the most important criteria to select people with.
If you are utilitarian with the objective of maximising population then it is ethical to make entire realities filled entirely with animated shapesand and to turn all the dead in undead and make sure to have more and more sources of people and even to start creating opposite alignment duplicates out people thanks to the plane of mirrors and to use gate to gate in creatures from the planes of dreams so that they can go to sleep to allows to have more creatures in the plane of dreams and also force all the creatures in eternal sleep where they dream more creatures or work producing more creatures.

[Unoriginal]

I'm a philosopher specializing in ethics (my philosophy is called "The Heroic Ethic"), and I always play good heroes. There is sometimes some friction with the inevitable Chaotic Neutral character, but I don't tolerate shenanigans (and I'm always the most powerful PC, so...).

So you threaten, bully and are potentially willing to assault or kill your team mates. I'm surprised anyone will group with you.

Bilbron, haven't you stated in another thread that your group does not listen to you, and in at least one case told you to stop trying to Polymorph a PC without their consent?

[Naanomi]

I mean, both Arthurian characters and Antiquity's heroes would certainly not be considered "good" by today's morals and ethics, and in general would not fit any of of D&D 5e's good alignments.

Idealized versions of them are probably pretty well represented by... Arcadia, in the LN/LG part of the Outer Planes? Arthur himself, of course, is historically (and explicitly) resting in Thallasia (the fourth level of Elysium)

[Bilbron]

So you threaten, bully and are potentially willing to assault or kill your team mates. I'm surprised anyone will group with you.

Ah, what? Quite a leap. There are no issues because my party doesn't try to do evil stuff. If they did, we would RP it out but ultimately no one would throw down because we all know how that ends.

It's generally better to steel man a guy than straw man him... it's a much more charitable approach to dialectic, IMO.

If we are completely honest with ourselves, Heroes (and their players) are just thugs who have convinced themselves they are justified.

Thoughts?

This boils down to whether you believe morality is objective or subjective. We do live in an age of moral relativity, but this argument implies that slavery is OK if the culture is down with it. If one disagrees, and I think most do, then this implies that there IS an objective morality by which cultural morality can be measured and even judged.

So I believe that there can be Heroes, but that these are many fewer than those who think themselves such, as of course everyone tends to be in the grips of selection/confirmation bias and lacks the rigorous practice necessary to truly both 1. monitor their thoughts for inconsistency and fallacy, and 2. engage in enough dialectic with the humility to adopt superior arguments. So in practice, there is disagreement. But ultimately I believe all those disagreements can be measured against an objective standard, meaning some will be right and some will be wrong, and it's not just a matter of opinion (just as the immorality of slavery, rape, et al. is not an opinion but an objectively sound fact).

[Unoriginal]

Idealized versions of them are probably pretty well represented by... Arcadia, in the LN/LG part of the Outer Planes? Arthur himself, of course, is historically (and explicitly) resting in Thallasia (the fourth level of Elysium)

For the idealized versions, probably true.

But there's a huge difference between the idealized versions and the versions from the Arthurian legends. Not to mention how many different versions of them there is in the various legends.

Ah, what? Quite a leap. There are no issues because my party doesn't try to do evil stuff. If they did, we would RP it out but ultimately no one would throw down because we all know how that ends.

Then why did you mention that your character was the most powerful of the group in the same post saying you don't tolerate shenanigans?

How is your character's power a relevant factor in this?

Either everyone can RP as they wish, or your character will throw down to stop them if it comes down to it.

It's generally better to steel man a guy than straw man him... it's a much more charitable approach to dialectic, IMO.

I prefer to air man them: